2008 Election

Fox Blog: Is Obama The New Coke?

My wife brought an entertaining piece to my attention the other day entitled “Is Obama The New Coke”

There are two basic scenarios for Brand Obama at this point.

One, the electorate thought they were getting one thing in Obama and instead got something very different. In other words, they wanted the change he said he would bring, but dislike the change he is actually bringing and actually believes in. In this scenario, Obama is what he is and simply won’t be able to adapt to what the Target Market demands –this spells a short stay — one term — in the White House.

Two, Obama is the change the electorate wants and he is capable of embodying this change. But the president has lost sight of his Target Market’s needs and is falling prey to inside-the-Beltway realities and left-leaning pieties and interest groups.

Read the full article here. Clever observations.

Fox Blog: Is Obama The New Coke?

My wife brought an entertaining piece to my attention the other day entitled “Is Obama The New Coke”

There are two basic scenarios for Brand Obama at this point.

One, the electorate thought they were getting one thing in Obama and instead got something very different. In other words, they wanted the change he said he would bring, but dislike the change he is actually bringing and actually believes in. In this scenario, Obama is what he is and simply won’t be able to adapt to what the Target Market demands –this spells a short stay — one term — in the White House.

Two, Obama is the change the electorate wants and he is capable of embodying this change. But the president has lost sight of his Target Market’s needs and is falling prey to inside-the-Beltway realities and left-leaning pieties and interest groups.

Read the full article here

Even Wikipedia is Biased

Does the Wikipedia entry on our new President have any references to major campaign news items such as William Ayers, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and questions on his eligibility? Nope. And anyone who attempts to add these to his entries – with plenty of third party reputable news sources as backup – is banned from posting anything to the site.

Spectator on Obama: “America, What Have you Done?”

I was referred to a very concisely and well written article by Melanie Phillips, in the Spectator, recently on Obama’s utter lack of bringing hope or change to Washington. Take the time to read it and click through…

President Obama has had, by general consent, a torrid First Fortnight. To put it another way, it has taken precisely two weeks for the illusion that brought him to power to be exposed for the nonsense that it so obviously was. The transformational candidate who was going to sweep away pork-barrel politics, lobbyists and corruption has been up to his neck in sleaze, as eviscerated here by Charles Krauthammer. Despite the fact that he came to power promising to ‘ban all earmarks’, his ‘stimulus’ bill represents billions of dollars of special-interest tax breaks, giveaways and protections — which have nothing to do with kick-starting the economy and everything to do with favouring pet Democrat causes.

He has been appointing one tax dodger, lobbyist and wheeler-dealer after another. After appointing one official,Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who had unaccountably forgotten to pay his taxes, he then watched his designated Health Secretary Tom Daschle fall on his sword because he too had taken a tax holiday. Daschle was furthermore a prominent actor in the world of lobbying and influence-peddling. Leon Panetta, Obama’s nominee for Director of the CIA has also, according to the Wall Street Journal, consulted for prominent companies and sat on the board of a public affairs firm that lobbies Congress. The Weekly Standard reports that Secretary of Labour nominee Hilda Solis was not only involved with a private organization lobbying her fellow legislators on a bill that she helped sponsor, but she apparently kept her involvement secret and failed to reveal a clear conflict of interest.

In foreign policy, Obama has started by trashing his own country through grossly misrepresenting its history and grovelling to America’s enemies such as Iran, which has flicked him aside with undiluted contempt.  He has gratuitously upset America’s ally India by suggesting that America should muscle in and resolve the Kashmir question.

His right hand doesn’t seem to know what his left hand is doing. He reportedly asked retired Marine General Anthony Zinni to be US ambassador to Iraq, but then abruptly withdrew the appointment without explanation after it had been confirmed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. And the precise role he is offering Dennis Ross – special envoy to Iran? Special adviser to Hillary? Special adviser to other special advisers? – remains mired in confusion.

I have argued before however that, given Obama’s radical roots in the neo-Marxist, nihilist politics of Saul Alinsky, it is the undermining of America’s fundamental values that is likely to be this President’s most strategically important goal. I have also suggested that, since this agenda is promoted through stealth politics which gull the credulous middle-classes while destroying the ground upon which they are standing, his second-tier appointments should be closely scrutinised.

And here’s a humdinger. Obama has picked a man called David Ogden to be deputy Attorney-General. Ogden has made his legal career from representing pornographers, trying to defeat child protection legislation and undermining family values.  As FoxNews reported this week, he once represented a group of library directors arguing against the Children’s Internet Protection Act, which ordered libraries and schools receiving funding for the Internet to restrict access to obscene sites. And on behalf of several media groups, he successfully argued against a child pornography law that required publishers to verify and document the age of their models, which would have ensured these models were at least 18.

The Family Research Council has more examples of his contribution to upholding American and western values. In one such case, he expressed the view that abortion was less damaging to a woman than having children:

In sum, it is grossly misleading to tell a woman that abortion imposes possible detrimental psychological effects when the risks are negligible in most cases, when the evidence shows that she is more likely to experience feelings of relief and happiness, and when child-birth and child-rearing or adoption may pose concomitant (if not greater) risks or adverse psychological effects …

In another, co-authored brief, he argued that it was an unconstitutional burden on 14-year old girls seeking an abortion for their parents to be notified — because there was no difference between adults and mid-teens in their ability to grasp all the implications of such a decision:

There is no question that the right to secure an abortion is fundamental. By any objective standard, therefore, the decision to abort is one that a reasonable person, including a reasonable adolescent, could make. [E]mpirical studies have found few differences between minors aged 14-18 and adults in their understanding of information and their ability to think of options and consequences when asked to consider treatment-related decisions. These unvarying and highly significant findings indicate that with respect to the capacity to understand and reason logically, there is no qualitative or quantitative difference between minors in mid-adolescence, i.e., about 14-15 years of age, and adults.

And how did the 44th President react to the growing public dismay over the mess he was making? He threw his toys out of the pram — or perhaps that should read, he got into the pram. For he fled the scene of the disaster and sought the company of seven year-olds instead. As the Telegraph reported:

‘We were just tired of being in the White House,’ he told a group of excited seven-year-olds before discussing Batman and reading them a book.

Tired of being President – after two weeks!

Tax cheats, pork-barrel politics, ancillary child abuse, incompetence, chaos, treachery and infantilism. America – what have you done?!

Amen.

And the Liberal Press Actually Expect Us To Take Them Seriously?

From today’s Wall Street Journal:

FROM THE MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER’S CYBERALERT.
File this one under “Deluded Expectations.” During MSNBC’s coverage of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, on Nov. 27, daytime anchor Alex Witt seemed frustrated that the election of Barack Obama 23 days earlier — and the accompanying “global outpouring of affection, respect, hope” — had not caused an end to terrorist violence.

Talking with correspondent John Yang, who was covering the Obama side of the story, Witt conceded that while “you certainly can’t expect things to change on a dime overnight….There had been such a global outpouring of affection, respect, hope, with the new administration coming in, that precisely these kinds of attacks, it was thought — at least hoped — would be dampered down. But in this case it looks like Barack Obama is getting a preview of things to come.”

[This item, by the MRC’s Rich Noyes, was posted Monday morning on the MRC’s blog, Newsbusters.org]

It almost seems like a parody of liberals’ blind worship of Obama to actually expect that The One’s election would mean terrorists hanging up their bomb belts, peace around the world, lions lying down with lambs, and so forth. For his part, Yang delicately pointed out the more valid concern that “the enemies of the United States, those who don’t care for the United States no matter who’s leading it, would try and test the United States” during the transition from Bush to Obama.

Here’s the full exchange, that took place at about 2:55pm EST on Thursday, Thanksgiving Day, after Yang reported on how Obama was being fully briefed by the Bush administration on the terrorist attacks:

ALEX WITT: You know, John, and it’s interesting because there are many who had such an optimstic and hopeful opinion of things, and you certainly can’t expect things to change [snaps fingers] on a dime overnight, but there are many who suggested that with the outgoing Bush administration and the incoming Obama administration there would be something of a lull in terrorism attacks. There had been such a global outpouring of affection, respect, hope, with the new administration coming in, that precisely these kinds of attacks, it was thought — at least hoped — would be dampered down. But in this case it looks like Barack Obama is getting a preview of things to come.
JOHN YANG: He’s — it’s a rude awakening, a very, sort of, sober reminder of what he’s going to be facing in just a few weeks. And there is some concern also, there had been some concern, that during this period, during this, the transition period, between Election Day and Inauguration Day, that the enemies of the United States, those who don’t care for the United States no matter who’s leading it, would try and test the United States, would try to take advantage of this period, and I think that may be one thing that we’re seeing right now.
WITT: Okay, John Yang there in Chicago, following President-elect Barack Obama’s Thanksgiving Day dinner having been interrupted by all of this news from Mumbai. John, thank you very much.

Find the article on the Wall Street Journal’s website here.

Ignorant Teacher Confronts McCain Kids

This is the quality of teacher they allow in Cumberland, North Carolina. She can’t even put two intelligent words together and yet she beats up a 5th grader.

Cumberland County, North Carolina

Cumberland Schools Superintendent William C. Harrison:

910-678-2300

This genius, Diantha (tehehe) Harris, teaches 5th Grade at:

Mary McArthur A+ Elementary School, 3809 Village Drive, Fayetteville, NC, 28304

http://www.mmes.ccs.k12.nc.us

Principal Lola Williams:

LolaW@ccs.k12.nc.us

910-424-2206

Harris’ contact page:

NO ID NEEDED! I Just Voted and Found Inconsistencies

I wish I had video of this, but I only have the audio. I’ll do the best I can to describe the missing visuals…

I watched several people walk to the table and point out their name, sign and go into the booth to vote. Not a single person was showing ID, no was asked.

My wife went before me and simply pointed to the paper worksheet with all of the name on them and said “That’s me”. The poll workers both pointed her to the booth and away she went to vote. She could have been anyone Obama bused in from out of state, like he’s known to do.

Me Poll Monitor 1 Poll Monitor 2
“Last name, sir?”
“[My Last Name]”
(flipping through pages to find my name, finds the right page)
“That’s it right there. [First and middle initial].”
(pushes page to me and gives me a pen, pointing to the signature line)
“Do I need to show ID?”
(stands up) “Yes, sir! We have to see ID.”
“No, no, not the ID.”
“Let…”
“Here…”
“Can I see the ID, sir?”
“Are you asking for ID for everyone?”
“No, we don’t need ID”
“No one does?”
“No”
“Sir.”
“So I could be anybody?”
“Sir, can I see the ID, I just said it.”
“So you want it.”
“Yes.”
“After I asked?”
“I’m gonna ask anyway.”
“Were you?”
“Yes, sir.”
“No.” (laughs awkwardly)
“That’s interesting, cause she didn’t want it.” (I pointed to poll monitor 2)
“Sir, I am the chairperson here because … waiting out there so I have to ask.”
“Ah”
“Ok?”
“But my wife just went without showing ID.”
“Who, who, who is the person that just came? Maybe when I went down to the dock.”
“No. You were standing right here. Right in front of me. This woman.” (pointing to the space my wife had just vacated on the floor in front of me) “Who’s in the poll right now.” (pointing to the booth) “Did not show ID.”
“Maybe, I didn’t take notice.”
“She didn’t show ID!”
“I said I did not. I said ‘I’, my mistake.”
“Yes, but shouldn’t you notice?”
“Yeah. Really that’s my mistake. People have to show ID, especially right here…” (points to another persons name on the list) “and then right there” (points to another name on the list)
“But I just watched her not show ID, so how many people have not showed?”
“Yes, but you see, for you…”
“She, she will not show ID here. For you, you have to show ID. Because it is recommended that…”
“For you they’re asking for ID.”
“They ask us. You have to.”
“Uh, that’s not me.” (pointing to the name they are looking at, a few people below mine)
“Ok. We are just saying people like that. People like this…” (pointing back at my name) “we don’t have to ask them.”
“Why is that?”
“Because maybe they a, they, they, they ah, submit your papers they was in… uhhhh”
“I don’t know.”
“The same. (pause) That was why they asked, and they made a special ballot for those people anyway. Another booklet.”
“So for you they didn’t need it, you see?”
“You see, we don’t need it! Anyway…”
“OK”

What else can you say to that? I considered lecturing them about how to run a fair and accurate polling place, but it was clear they were completely in the dark and I’d only be wasting my time on them.

Audio to be included as soon as I can verify that is was legal in my state.